Good points Sap, there are definitely grey areas in the law and this case is not as cut-and-dried as some make it out to be. In regards to the remaining "originality" of the host coin, there are traces of the original design just like there would be with a mint error double struck coin. The effect is not as prominent as a double struck coin because of higher striking pressure but the host design is still there. DC did not want to remove all traces of the original design for obvious reasons- it is an identifying marker. The other major identifying marker is a boldly repunched mint mark.

I have to believe that DC did alot of research before undertaking this project. After all, he is trying to create a legitimate business here(Moonlight Mint) and would not want to do something overtly illegal. IIRC, I read on another forum that he had also undertaken legal consultations so if something happens, he is fully prepared to make his case. I am also of the opinion that DC had other motives here- he wants to provoke the FTC(the Federal Trade Commission has legal jurisdiction over the Hobby Protection Act) to make a ruling and hopefully clarify and update the HPA.

The HPA does not address the situation of an "original numismatic item" not actually exiting such as the case of the 1964-D Peace dollar. Since the US Mint records have confirmed the destruction of all 1964-D Peace Dollars(meaning that no original numismatic items exist), that may be a legal opening similar to the situation with the 1933 Farouk Double Eagle and the State Department export license. The HPA also needs to be revised to specifically address fantasy pieces, particularly the ones that use design elements of genuine US coins. The HPA was written in 1973, long before numismatics became a multi-billion dollar industry and before the Chinese and others decided to actively undermine to collector market to make a few more yuan, it is time for a modernized law.

Quote:However, I think he might be in even more trouble with the law by making and having the dies themselves, since owning dies to make counterfeit coins which are "in likeness or similitude" to real coins is definitely illegal, and arguing that he didn't intend to use them on silver blanks but to non-fraudulently alter existing coins is irrelevant, because this law makes no mention of intent.

That is an especially interesting situation in light of the fact that the press DC uses is a Graebner Press that was used at the Denver Mint and then sold off as government surplus. If the government attempts to prosecute him for illegal dies, how will it resolve the fact that they were essentially accessories to his "crime" by supplying him with one of the necessary components for minting coins?

Quote:That is an especially interesting situation in light of the fact that the press DC uses is a Graebner Press that was used at the Denver Mint and then sold off as government surplus. If the government attempts to prosecute him for illegal dies, how will it resolve the fact that they were essentially accessories to his "crime" by supplying him with one of the necessary components for minting coins?

I can't see that as being relevant, since owning a press that's theoretically capable of producing a counterfeit coin isn't a crime. Otherwise, they'd have to shut down every private mint and arrest every badge maker, button maker, bullion round maker and medal maker in the country, all of whom have a machine that could do more or less the same job.

If you buy one of those defaced dies which the mint sells, and carve your own counterfeit coin design onto it and use it to stamp out counterfeit coins, is the government complicit in your counterfeiting by supplying you with the raw material you need? No. Owning a defaced die isn't a crime, carving your own design into it that doesn't resemble a coin wouldn't be a crime, either. But attempting to "un-deface" the die for use in making counterfeit coins is.

The government would only be complicit in Mr Carr's case if there were dies for 1964 dollars still in place in the press when he bought it.

Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis

Hey wheezydog down the road you will pay even more. almost to that point of not making them anymore only going to 2000 after that ? never know. I like getting items like this it's a gamble and let me tell you I've got 2 of the high luster what they called a MS 68 it's very nice and look Great in the set don't sit on the fence to long. And I would like to thank everyone that has posted for this topic when I first asked about what everyone thought I had know idea. I wish everyone a very happy thanksgiving. :-)

Here are some pictures Wheezy (I am not sure which VAM numbers they are)....They were much, much cheaper a while back, $60 or $75 as I recall (if you bought them directly from Dan).

If you prefer toned coins, I imagine that they might also available soon.....(I'm not sure if this one is NT or AT)..

By the way, I must agree with Maxwell on the volatility of this sort of thing.....In another few years, $199 might seem dirt cheap or it may prove to be moon money for a trinket that is worth but melt.....you can make your own assumptions based on the exposure that it has been widely given....an article in Coin World, dozens of threads, comprising thousands of replies (no exaggeration) on the CU forums,where he is an active member in good standing....most people are either solidly supportive or staunchly opposed to this actions.....(If nothing else, he is a lion, and does not back down from his personal beliefs and convictions, although he either ignores or responds tactfully to those who jeer).

I think Dan is an upstanding guy and one very nice dealer to talk to if you ever get the chance. I do know him and spoke with him many times and even specifically about the legality of the 64D dollar.

He tried very hard to ensure he wasn't stepping on any toes before producing them. According to the Mint, the coin no longer exists and is not a coin they intended to circulate. In theory, Dan's piece is a fantasy coin and a fantastic reproduction at that!

That said, it's still possible the government could go after him with some aspect of a law that he tried to steer clear of. I'm not sure if I'm letting the cat out of the bag on this, but he has a desire to produce some other coins that were never officially minted by the U.S. (think along the lines of a 1931 SLQ!).

I will say that after getting my D.C 64 D I was looking into getting it Graded by ANACS as it had said on D.C web site that they would be Certifying all moonlight mints coins and tokens Designed by Daniel Carr so I called them to find out and was told that ANACS would not Certify any coin that had been altered or defaced and that it was all here-say that this was going to happen sorry sir but we won't be doing that. So I ask and I think it would be a good thing to have this done where to have this Moon light mint D.C 1964 D Peace dollar Certified. One more thing and let me tell you when you get your coin it come in a plastic flip ? paying this kind of money for any coin you would think it would come in a hard protector.

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2015 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use